Modeling Arguments
Modeling arguments using Toulmin’s approach is useful for two reasons. First, it provides a language with which to inspect arguments, understand how they work, and examine the support used by those making them. In other words, it allows critical thinkers and decision-makers to do more than choose to accept or reject the arguer‘s position. It allows them to explain the basis for their decision. At the same time, by mapping the components of the argument, the Toulmin model provides a means to identify the components of an argument and assess their strengths and weaknesses. I conclude this chapter by examining a small portion of an argumentative text to demonstrate the use of the Toulmin model.
For some people, simply understanding the characteristics of each of the elements of arguments is all they need to be able to identify those elements in the everyday arguments that they encounter. For many others, analyzing arguments is deceptively difficult. In order to develop the ability to analyze arguments, it helps to begin with written, rather than spoken, arguments. Written arguments are easier because they are ―black and white, and you can literally number the sentences for analysis. Spoken arguments can also be analyzed using these techniques; unfortunately, there is far less time to do the same amount of work. Therefore, it is helpful to start with written arguments and to develop a reasonable level of proficiency before attempting to identify the elements of arguments in spoken contexts.
In this section I offer step-by-step procedures that aid the beginning student of argument in developing an “ear” needed for hearing the individual components of argument. Think of it as an exercise that you repeat in order to build proficiency. Of course, in order to demonstrate these procedures, we need an actual argument to work with. The following argument is far from perfect, but natural arguments in the public sphere rarely are. Try to withhold the urge to provide your own opinion about the value of the argument. When identifying elements of an argument, it is not completely necessary to also know the responses. Let’s take the argument provided as a case study.
The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
–Gallagher, U.S. News and World Report
1. Take stock of the sentences that make the argument in question.
This is fairly simple, but for the best analysis you should also separate out independent clauses. If you don‘t do this you risk blending different elements, making analysis difficult. For example, in the above argument, there are four sentences. If you only letter the sentences, you get the following results:
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Sentence ‘c’ has two independent clauses. Take the extra step and treat them as separate sentences, it will simplify things in the long run. To keep track of the original structure, use numbered sub-points. For example:
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
2. Focus on one element of the Toulmin model at a time.
The order of elements that you analyze is important. You can waste a significant amount time randomly selecting elements to analyze. You also risk mislabeling sentences. I suggest the following order of elements when analyzing any argument.
First: Locate the Claim
Identifying claims is comparatively easier than identifying other elements because claims are often (but not always) explicitly included in the text of arguments. Also, identifying claims precedes identifying data because identifying claims is the most important skill a student of argument ought to develop.
Second: Locate the Data
Identifying data is relatively easier than identifying other elements because data is often (but not always) a product of research provided by the author. Identifying data precedes identifying warrants because data is often (but not always) explicitly included in the text of an argument.
Third: Locate the Warrant
Warrants are relatively more difficult to identify than many other core elements because warrants are often (but not always) implied by the author of an argument. Identifying warrants precedes identifying backing because it is one of the three core elements of any argument, whereas backing is an optional element that may not be a part of an argument.
Forth: Locate the Backing
Identifying backing is relatively easier than finding the other optional elements of the Toulmin model because backing is often (but not always) a product of research provided by the author.At this point in the analysis, analyzing the reservation may precede the backing if the analyst so chooses.
Fifth: Locate the Reservation
Identifying the reservation is relatively more difficult because a reservation might be written with a good deal of rhetorical flair.
Finally: Locate the Qualifier
Identifying the qualifier might happen immediately after identifying the claim because the qualifier often is found within the claim.
3. Compare two sentences from the argument in question.
The element that you selected in step two is the basis for comparison. You are listening for indications that the first sentence more closely resembles the characteristics of the element than the second. Say the two sentences out loud. Write them down side-by-side. Write one on top of the other. Do whatever technique helps you to come to a conclusion. Keep in mind, an argument has several sentences, so there is no requirement that either sentence fit perfectly with the selected element. But that does not prevent you from coming to a conclusion as to which sentence is a better fit.
For our argument, I begin with the claim and compare the first two sentences. Given the choice between these two sentences, I conclude that ‘a’ is a better candidate to be a claim than ‘b’ because ‘a’ asserts a position about arguments regarding video game violence as demonstrated by scientific research and common sense. Whereas, sentence ‘b’ cites and reports scientific research (FBI statistics) about video game violence.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
4. Select the next sentence and repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no more sentences to compare from the argument.
You are now going to take the ‘winning’ sentence from your most recent comparison and hear how it matches up with the others. Do this a systematically as possible to save on time.
‘a’ is a better claim than ‘c.i’ because ‘c.i’ clarifies what the author is not claiming, rather than what he is claiming.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
Very similar, but ‘a’ sounds more direct than ‘c.ii.’ Also, ‘c.ii’ makes a reference to “the evidence,” which implies a unique relationship to a specific fact outside of the sentence. ‘a’ makes a more general statement implying multiple types of support.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
‘a’ is a better claim than ‘d’ for the same reason ‘a’ is a better claim than ‘b,’ because a sounds more “persuading,” and ‘b’ sounds more “matter of fact.”
The final result: ‘a’ is most likely the claim for this particular audience.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
5. Remove the sentence from further analysis and label it with the appropriate Toulmin model element.
There can be many ways of doing this, even as simple as a chart, but there is value in being able to read the original argument as a common paragraph. Therefore, the following formatting suggestions offer a common way to label elements of an argument with the least amount of clutter possible.
Suggested formatting for analyzing arguments using the Toulmin model.
Claim Bold
Data Underline
Warrant Italics
Backing Underlined italics
Reservation Bold underline
Qualifier Bold italics
For this argument, the result at this point in the analysis is:
The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
6. Move onto the next Toulmin model element, and repeat steps 3-6 until all core elements are accounted for.
Consider the analysis of each element to be a “round” of analysis. Therefore, the number of “rounds” ought to equal the number of elements in the Toulon model. It is important to remember that there ought to be a single claim per argument, but there may be multiple of any of the other elements. Therefore, you should check if the author has offered more than one data sentence before moving on to the optional elements of an argument. Unfortunately, there is a higher risk of error during this “double-check” because there is no requirement for additional data for any given claim. Another complication that arises during this step is when a warrant is implicit rather than explicit. There are times when none of the sentences seem to fill the role of warrant for the claim and data. Additionally, if an author offers several different kinds of data to support a single claim, it is likely that there are several warrants that are also part of the argument. For our argument, each round, and its results, would be as follows:
Round 1: The claim
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Round 2: Data
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Round 3: The warrant
Remember, that it is possible that the warrant is implied. What to look for is some type of rationale connecting the data to the claim. Since you have already identified both, you should have an idea what it might sound like. Not all warrants are of equal quality.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Round 4: The backing
This step should only happen when you feel confident that you have all core elements, implicit or explicit. Each optional Toulmin model element is dependent on one of the core elements. You should still focus on one element at a time, but now apply the element to each remaining sentence in order and independently determine if each fits into the element in question.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Round 5: The reservation
A reservation defends the reason for qualification of the claim. In this case, the argument preemptively responds to the potential objection that one should not assume that video games decrease violence just because there is a correlation.
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
Round 6: The qualifier
Remember that the qualifier is part of the claim itself. In this case, “undermined” modifies an absolute claim like “disproven.”
a. The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense.
b. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared.
c.i. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline.
c.ii. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior.
d. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
The final result is an argument with all core elements explicated and all sentences accounted for:
The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: “The state has not produced substantial evidence that…violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.”
For this argument, the warrant is explicitly included, but in many cases, perhaps even a majority of cases, the warrant is implied. Do not force sentences into the argument structure, they should naturally resonate with one of the elements more than the others. If you think that there are two claims within the combination of statements you are analyzing, consider treating it as two arguments rather than one. If you can’t find a warrant or data, consider the possibility that they are implied. Also remember that there may be “leftover” sentences that don’t really add anything to the argument other than style or rhetorical flourish. The modeling process is very long and involved, but the more you practice the easier and quicker it becomes. You begin to be able to identify claims at a rate that makes it seem like intuition or reflex. Once you identify the claim, the data and warrant are simple to sniff out. But just like any skill, it requires practice.